Hummingbird

Interesting, haven't checked it myself yet, but if the weight of these aren't modelled they definitely should be.

How are things progressing guys?

Many thanks for the explanations guys, that would explain the relative lack of yaw authority in some cases. That said it still feels incredibly nervous to fly, and it doesn't appear as stable in DCS as it is when you watch it in real life, irrespective of wether there's a very good DCS heli pilot behind the controls or not. But ofcourse it's still early access, so much can change.

I didn't know the F-16 could jettison all its pylons, every single one... interesting... or the F-15, or F/A-18... Why are we able to take them all off and fly them completely bare bones again? Hmmmm... I wonder.. Seriously though, being as snobby and aggressive as some of you are being right now toward someone saying he hopes they add the ability to remove the CFTs in the future, is really disturbing to witness. You're acting like it was a demand instead of a wish/hope, despite the latter being spelled out for you. Praying none of you work within law enforcement! You'd arrest people for even looking at the other side of a crosswalk during a red light.. Unbelievable..

So by your logic, because the F-15E operationally always carries the CFTs, then we shouldn't have the possibility to fly without them in DCS? Well using that same logic we shouldn't have the possibility of flying ANY modern jet clean in DCS, because none of them are flown like that operationally.... see how silly that is? The mere fact that they can be taken off justifies having that ability ingame, just as it does it for all the other modules. You know there are possibly some guys out there that might want to simulate an F-15D aggressor too.

I see, I would've thought the tail rotor easily could compensate for that. Which leads me to another thing I was wondering about, which is that when'ever I increase throttle I need to apply more right rudder to counter the main rotor torque (which by itself seems quite logical), but if the tail rotor is connected to the main engine, shouldn't it also provide that much extra thrust as I increase throttle to essentially cancel out the extra torque/yaw force imparted by the main rotor? PS: Sorry in advance if my questions are stupid, I am most certainly no helicopter expert!

Did a load of experimental flights with Pappy to investigate this issue, and indeed the R-27R is harder to spoof than the AIM-7M. But to get on topic, the fact that chaff works at all when the target isn't at near 90 deg, and there's a very high closure speed, that just can't be right and definitely needs a fix.

From all the people screaming for it perhaps? I didn't say EVERYONE wants it, I mean there are people out there who don't want an AH-64 Apache or F-4 Phantom either, but does that mean the majority don't ? No ofcourse not.

Hopefully the ability to take the CFT's off will come in the future. Yes it will require FM tweaks, but that's not an impossible task, the ground work already being there.

This is not about being right, it's about providing a source for you statements. I haven't heard anyone in here say they worked on/in the F-15 either. But thanks for the forum link at least.

I never said weight doesn't matter. Hence why I'm comparing the aircraft at the same weight & configuration. So again, you really didn't read anything I wrote, instead you immediately jumped to conclusions in your eagerness to prove someone wrong, a common theme in here it seems... Sorry but what does that have to do with anything? The point is we should ofcourse expect the aircraft to fly realistically at any weight & configuration. Hence if we set up a F-15E at 41,000 lbs without CFTs we should also expect it to fly similarly to a F-15C at that weight (bar some minor differences). If the aircraft engineers themselves "estimate" this, then why shouldn't we? If we can't remove the CFT's then we should expect the aircraft to fly like the real one does with CFT's, with matching performance. The charts are all there, and they are made by the real professionals, not us goons discussing on a internet forum. So if the engineers at McDonnell themselves estimated only a very minor difference, then I'm at fault for doing the same? And btw, it's only the effect of the stores drag that's estimated on. The data basis is flight testing of the aircraft, with & without the CFTs. Hence why the data basis for the clean F-15E chart is "flight test".

So you didn't read a single thing I wrote I see, well done. "twice the weight" Jesus Mary and Joseph, where do these people come from?? So they didn't write it anywhere in their subforum under FAQ or expected features....well...

Because when "someone" says it, it doesn't automatically mean it's true. Provide a link/source instead of assuming people think you're an authority on the subject and will trust you blindly. Arguing your case with "because I say so" is about the most asinine form of argumentation there is.

Have you got a source instead of "because I say so" ?

The STR of a 41,000 lbs PW220 powered F-15C & E (no CFT) is close to identical, looking at the charts right now. So there's no noticable difference due to the canopy there, as expected. Added weight changes performance, that's a given. But I see no data on shifted CoG anywhere to indicate a difference in stall angles, buffet regions, pitch sensitivity etc. (without CFT that is)

So you're saying the flight characteristics are significantly altered by a slightly different size canopy?: Without CFT's this is litterally the only difference between the two aircraft in terms of external shape, and I can't find any data on a shifted CoG. Hence I am certainly expecting very similar flight characteristics between the two in DCS. PS: Have the devs confirmed that you cannot ommit the CFT's on the F-15E they're releasing? I hope not.

Without CFT's they should be the same. You talk about a different CoG due to a longer nose, but the length of the aircraft is the same according to Boeing. The only noticable shape change I see is the larger canopy, but that shouldn't significantly alter flight characteristics, esp. during maneuvers. It's only the altered airflow and CoG changes caused when mounting the CFT's that should have an effect. Mount them on the C (I know it cant) and you'd see the same effect. Main point here is that a clean F-15E without CFT's should fly basically the same as a clean F-15C (bar some very small differences), as shape and CoG are the same. In other words if the Razbam F-15E flies nothing like the ED F-15C under similar configurations , then it begs disbelief.

I wouldn't be speaking if I didn't own the performance manuals for both myself. I will repeat what I've said, the flight characteristics of the E & C are basically identical when flying under the same configuration (no CFT's), and not that much different with CFT's either. Available AoA, surface stall angles, buffet regions etc are the same.. why? Because the shape is the same, and how an aircraft flies is determined by how the fluid medium we call "air" interacts with said shape. Hence it will only be between one with and one without CFT's you'd notice a difference, as providing the CoG stays around the same, a difference in weight only changes performance, not flight characteristics.

Ofcourse we will be able to take them off, anything else would be pretty silly. And again, whilst performance is altered, flying characteristics will be largely the same, and downright identical if the CFT's are off. Seriously, why don't people read what is being written before they respond ?? Ofcourse PERFORMANCE (i.e. STR/ITR/climb rate etc) at different weights will be different, however the flight characteristics will be the same. Hence why I made the comparison of a 41,000 lbs E vs C version..

Thanks, I will check tommorrow to see wether that's the case.

Well if you look at the video, notice how quickly the rotation of the real helicopter can be stopped in either direction despite being in a fast spin. I can't do that in DCS, I simply don't have enough yaw authority, esp. to one side.

Just got back into flying the MiG-15 and I've noticed that when'ever I remove the gun safety cover the view automatically focuses in on the gunsight. This is super annoying for me, as I prefer to shoot with the std. camera angle which is further back and where the gunsight is slightly offset to the right and I can see more of my instrumentation. Is there a way to fix this?

I think it's clear that the Me262 is the most wanted WW2 bird amongst most atm (it's certainly at the top of my WW2 wanted list), so the incentive for ED to make it as soon as possible has got to be there. Hopefully it will be the next WW2 module they release.

Not that I've noticed Lurker, haven't really been flying it much myself either as I can't really get over how unstable it is. In addition to this I stumbled upon a peculiar characteristic when attempting to fly sideways, with the heli only wanting to weathervane nose forward when flying sideways to the left, whilst to the right it wants to go tail forward. I'm not the first who noticed this though: Sometimes I also find myself in uncontrollable spins where it feels like I have no tail rotor, which is incredibly weird. It's as if the tail rotor lacks effectiveness to counter the torque of the main rotor at times, which seems very odd.